apollo4war

I've made a quick test with my system: setting CPU-Voltage to Auto and FSB to 400 like your's, my mobo set it to 1.15V. I keep Prime95 running in the background while working for about 3 hrs without failures. This can't be compared directly to your Asus P5B Deluxe Board. You should keep your setting as long as it works stable ;) or search through inet for other forums for overclocking your mb.

*gg* - yes, you can easily use arma2 for testing ;) I never done 3,4 GHz. I started with FSB450, CPU at 1.3V and 1.325V FSB which give the Q9550 (factor 8.5) 3.825 GHz. Higher clocks won't run stable with my CPU, and higher voltages results in >70°C while stressing (CPU is C1 stepping and water cooled), and voltages <~2.7 wont run stable. And this way i can run my DDR3 memory synced on 1800 MHz, which give up >1840. I've done stressing with ~2.8V without errors, and give it finally 1.3V to increase stability. So i keep it running on FSB450, now for over a year without any failure. Voltage settings are very different on any Mainboard, BIOS Version or CPU. Even if it is the same Q9550 C1, there can be other voltages needed. You should try the voltage settings on Auto in the Bios, and try it out. Anyway i think 1.25 is a good start for 3.4GHz (also keep FSB voltage low) - but Auto setting will be enough for that on most mainboards. When reducing CPU voltage you must do the hard way to be on safe side - but i think reducing it is the wrong way to safe energy ;) - better turn off your lights :D PSU can also affect overclocking capabilities and voltages... Which hardware do you own?

Yeaahh... that's the big problem. Since overclocking can be so easily done by almost everyone, there are many many system's out that can't run stable when fully utilized. i. e. when a new game is installed that can really use all the hardware power. But 100% stability? When will that be reached? - When all is at normal clock's :) or... the hard way: start P95 (or Everest System Stability Test on low priority) and keep it running, start OCCT Graphics Error Detection (with CPU stress still running), and (if you can) add some Disk I/O stress (with Everest :D). Keep both running a day :eek: - if all is still running 24 hrs. later without any error, then you can say: coool. keep it running for a week, and you can say: it's pretty stable. (but almost - not 100% stable) Finally - after that, if any error appears, then you can say: i think there must be something wrong with my software, drivers or operating system. ...and never trust any 3DMark Score that only runs <3 times loop ;)

It looks like there is no other way until BI releases a patch. In Windows Vista/Win7 you can simply remove 4GB from Windows without removing them from Mainboard. Start command prompt (with Administrator rights) and type: bcdedit /set removememory 4096 && shutdown /r /t 0 System restarts immediatly with 4GB removed. To restore default configuration use the following command: bcdedit /set removememory && shutdown /r /t 0 System restarts immediatly with full memory. Try to start ArmA2 without any parameters. Note: 4096 means size of memory to remove, not to keep! For 6GB systems you must use 2048 instead of 4096! 12GB systems 8096...

Yes - and they do. You've noticed i confirmed your message? (my english isn't that good - i hope anyone understand me) I've done that because this is one of many tweaks i found that will work and going to prevent other users to test over things that have none or negative effects. For many users it's hard to find differences while changing settings or they misinterpret them. i.e. i see others setting pre-rendered frames up to max in a automated profile, which doesn't work (it must be set globally if used with direct3d), and reporting back they had increasements... which can't be. Or others installing a SLI Fix with a single GPU and report FPS increase - where must be another reason. And finally they have so meany tweaks installed parallel, that no one can retrace which setting has the most deciding reason that others can benefit from.

I recommend the default driver setting for prerenderd frames. If you change this setting, you should actually read (and understood) the description for this setting. In case of arma2 and a actual gpu it's better to go 1 or max. 2 steps lower then increasing this setting. i.e. if the GPU really accept commands for 8 pre-rendered frames from cpu at a framerate of 24 fps, you will have a 'lag' of 1/3 sec. Anyway arma2 don't looks it calculates that much frames ahead. http://www.nhancer.com/?dat=d_optimizations#Prerender

me2 - i'm going on holiday for a few weeks... give arma2 a nice place in the shelf, and move back to arma until patch 1.10+ is out... (and nvidia's driver version is 400.00+) :D

We all hope... but there must be a way for bi to do it - the game must also be playable on mininum system requirements. And my rig must play it smooth :-P The funny thing is that clocking my cpu to orginal clocks or disable one or two cores also changed nothing on my system. fps is most ~15-25 in campaign, sometimes up to ~30. But it must be very cpu dependant, since my gpu('s) doesn't looks like they were much overstrained. And i really wonder why bi makes no use of any hardware accelerated sound or gpgpu acceleration, when they need soooo much cpu power(?). ahh... forget it, i already know... that needs much more development :-P

I've compared EVGA's SLI fix against nVidia's Fix. All i can find is that nVidia added the option for Hybrid SLI. The other Options are the same as in the EVGA Fix. No option added for non-SLI users - there can't be any improvement without using SLI, since the drivers are not affected by this patch. Only users with Hybrid-SLI setups will see improvements. Could be installing the SLI Fix resets settings to default (?). Anyone who install nVidia's fix should deinstall/remove the EVGA fix before installing nVidia's, if its previously installed!

Hey, same keyboard as mine ;). And same frustrating fps. :mad: ... and yes you can trust G15's lcd display :) Yes, you're right. Vsync is forced on by ArmA2 as it was on ArmA and many other games and is the best choice for quality etc. But it's not only on vista. I mean you can use nvidia driver (no idea for ati) to force vsync off using nvidia control panel or nhancer etc. as you know. Then you will see fps go over monitor's vsync, which is on most common lcd-monitors 60 hz and give same max. 60 fps when vsync on. with vsync off, my system fps is >~80 up to 110-120 fps sometimes - but only on arma2's main menu (nice to see with fraps on g15-lcd :D). in campaing still 15-25. and then... and you will know... anyway... this will show you how much 'power overflow' (:p) your gpu('s) have... damned to see game engine's 3d-rendered main-menu on over 80fps and ingame no chance over 23/24, ohh boy sometimes 25... on multiplayer sometimes ~32/33 - i think there's no other cap than vsync like ut3's frame rate smoothing. btw... EVGA FIX: i see some people with ati card's or non-sli-setup using evga's fix for arma2 - you should know that this fix (as the name says "EVGA SLI Ehancement" Patch) does nothing more than adding a sli-profile as you could do with nhancer or nvidia control panel (better options with nhancer) to enable sli for nvidia's sli enabled mainboards and graphics. this has absolutely no effect with ati cards or single nvidia cards. you must not install that. oh - and in my windows 7 installation, evga patch doesn't install correctly - give sli indicator a chance to see if sli is really enabled.

i use sli. not locked on my system. but still not more performance if it's off

i've disabled vsync for testing in winxp prof., vista-64bit and win7-64bit - but with nvidia cards using nhancer. vsync off works and fps goes up to ~70-85, but only on arma2 main-menu. while playing campaign fps is ~20-25 fps :( vsync disabled has no positive performance effect on my system.

(sorry my english - learned 20 years ago, and never used... :j:) this is exactly the same as i thought. it looks like to be impossible for me to reach framerates over ~25 fps on every detail settings (except on the main menu screen with ~50-60fps; all settings highest). most fps i see is 10-20 - really not playable. i've tested this game on my vista ultimate 64-bit, xp prof. and win 7 64-bit without any success. used different drivers and configs... sli or not. best stable fps i found under win xp, but only ~2,5gb ram available (32bit-sys) :( while playing i see the same low gpu temp's as wardog01 ~50-60°C on both gpu's. other games like crysis bring up to 80-85°C on gpu - looks like the graphics cards have nothing to do while cpu goes from 50-80% like wardog01 i spent most time tweaking... not playing... until now.